Thought experiment - Moral dilema

clark · 2002-10-29 08:07:49

Moral Dilema:

5 men and 5 women and you are stranded on a deserted island. The island has enough wood, food, and water to support the 11 people indefinitely. The 10 people have no expectation to be rescued. A decision is made, and agreed upon, to make the best of the situation and carry on with life. 5 of the people want to have families, irregardless of the strain that it would put on the resources of the island, the other 5 people do not wish to strain the resources. All have agreed to abide by your vote on what the group should do.

What do you decide?

Please note that there are no right and wrong answers, that being said, an explanation (if warranted) of how you came to your decision would be nice.

What would be your decision (if different) if more resources could be cultivated over time?

Do you think those on the island should each be free to make up their mind, or should they agree as a group?

Byron · 2002-10-29 10:37:31

Interesting scenario, clark...

If I was in the position to swing the vote either way, I would go with the "resource conservatists," and hold off having children...the example of Easter Island comes to mind...

*However*...there's always room for consideration in weighty matters such as these, and I would insist that the matter be revisted every three or four years or so, to make the determination on whether there are enough resources at that time to support families, such as surplus food stored away and some sort of sanitary infrastructure put in place...

As far as each individual making up his / her mind...that is something that would have to be decided at the very beginning...if the individuals do not wish to abide by 'group rule," so to speak, then the group should just divide the island up in 11 equal parcels and everyone be left to fend for themselves...of course, a group of 2 or 3 couples could form their own "kingdom" in order to do as they wish, and the others would just stay on their half of the island, but I really think that approach wouldn't be conductive to long-term survival in this type of setting...

B

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-29 10:52:56

This decision really isn't an individual decision, but it also isn't really a problem for the first generation, either. If the island can handle 11 people for a sustainable period of time, then it can probably handle a lot more, otherwise the ecosystem would have collasped because of a surplus strain. We do, after all, have five people who are unable to maintain themselves and their resources (you said that they wanted to procreate irregardless of resource consumption).

But assuming we did have such a situation, and assuming the ecosystem was collasping due to unmanaged resource consumption, obviously I would vote no. If people are unable to manage their resources, they endanger the whole ecosystem, and cannot be allowed to do that if it means endangering lives.

If more resources could be cultivated over time, the answer is again obvious. I would vote yes. But that's because the 5 people who want to have familes (which family is having the 3 some, btw?) are able to manage themselves. And there is clearly room for expansion.

But it could go either way. If I'm less humane, I could let them make their own decision, despite the fact that they've shown that they cannot manage themselves. And I could let them die when they did eventually run out of resources (I would have procured enough resources for myself, btw). If I'm a humanitarian, I would have to convince them somehow (probably as a group) that they need to manage themselves. If they want to have a family, they can only have one or two kids, and so on.

Palomar · 2002-10-29 15:34:54

*Well, there are some factors which could come into play which weren't brought up: What if two of the women are past child-bearing age? What if two of the persons are gay? What if four of the people comprise two married couples, and one of each couple has had either a vasectomy or tubal ligation? What if one of the women is already pregnant?

I think it's unrealistic to imagine such a scenario wherein everybody is heterosexual, young, frisky, fertile, etc.

Any possible answer would depend on more specifics. Not that I'm overly interested in getting really involved in this discussion, at this point.

There are always variables -- usually many -- which come into play in any social situation, especially something "drastic" like the one Clark gives. ???

I think questions like these tend to be rather pointless, because all of the unknown potential variables will affect social dynamics within the group in many ways unpredictable until the actual situation is confronted/experienced.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-01 02:11:33

Surely it would be possible to prove scientifically with a certain degree of accuracy how much resource strain the island can handle, at least to beings capable of the scientific process. Why should anyone get into a hypothetical that disallows the existance of science? Heck, the hypothesis is itself an invocation of science.

Mere observation can tell me that I'm picking too many coconuts, by damaging the trees from climbing too much, so I must devise a way to acquire those coconuts without damaging the trees. If we've been hunting bore ever since we landed, and their populations haven't dropped, surely I can hunt more bore, and indeed, continue doing so until I observe a population decrease.

And I see no reason why the children cannot leave the island. Sure, they may be content living there, but leaving would be no more traumatic to them than being stranded there was to their parents.

C'mon, Clark, stop biasing your hypotheticals so much.

Byron · 2002-11-01 08:28:53

How about I say I don't want to decide? I'd be dammed if I do, and dammed if I don't...and either way I vote, I'm going to have half the group hating me.

I tell the group that I refuse to play the role of Soloman...and guess what? You have total anarchy!! Then things really get interesting. The two couples who want children go ahead and have them as soon as possible, the ambivalent couple decide to have a single child a year later...and the five remaining people do not have children at all...

The childless couples are angry at the ones having children at first, due to the fact there may not be enough resources to support them, but seeing that they have no choice in the matter, they set aside their differences and begin working their butts off to ensure the survival of the group as a whole...and they insist that as soon as the children become old enough that they help out with the chores of the island.

I, having not decided the fate of the islander's lives one way or the other, is elected "leader", and placed in a position of trusted control, since I refused to excercise power even when given a legitimate opportunity to do so...

How's that for an answer??.... :0

B

clark · 2002-11-01 08:43:57

Byron,

LOL. Very creative. Who am I to say you made an unwise decision? However, i had hoped for a serious consideration of the problem- I am of course assuming your previous reply was just a fun kidding around.

Yes, the situation is a "damned if you do/don't", but that's the point. Here is a situation where YOU are forced to make a judgement call and you must balance your feelings of morality and ethics on several sensitive issues to resolve the disagreement.

Invariably in life we encounter thoe situations where *we* are the deciding factor in a dispute- jury duty is an american responsibility, and it effectively the same thing here. But that aside, we are all capable of determing right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable- and that is what i am trying to find out here.

I am not invoking rights, or society, or laws, or morality- I am providing a gray situation where there are no laws to govern or guide save your own. it's quite entertaining and insightful to see how people are unwilling to actually try to figure this out.

And yet, this situation I am presenting, there are similarities with what we may expect on Mars- but I think we have an opportunity to learn (or at least I do) by discussing these issues in a terran context.

I would also note that your abdication of responsibility has led to a tyrnay of those who wish to have children- since they pursue their own personal desires, irregardless of the wishes of those who hold opposite views, They further enslave the other group by forcing them to work harder in order to facillitate their behvaior, otherwise all perish.

Personally. I would vote to eat you first if this happened- you are essentially a non-person in this situation (the only qualified judge) and have chosen not to be a part of the group decision (which is life or death). I respect your decisiuon, but I would still vote to eat you first if and when things started getting bad on the island.

Palomar · 2002-11-01 09:05:19

The childless couples are angry at the ones having children at first, due to the fact there may not be enough resources to support them, but seeing that they have no choice in the matter, they set aside their differences and begin working their butts off to ensure the survival of the group as a whole...and they insist that as soon as the children become old enough that they help out with the chores of the island.

*Yeah. "Robinson Crusoe" meets "Lord of the Flies"...

Actually, considering that any artificial means of contraception would run out eventually, there would be babies born...unless, of course, couples would opt for alternatives in their intimate relations which would ensure against contraception.

I think it'd be absolutely dreadful to have a baby in those circumstances. There are so many inherent risks and dangers in pregnancies in the most advanced civilizations...you know, in such a primitive setting, the chances for infant mortality rate would skyrocket, as would maternal mortality...just like in the "olden days," when maybe 3 children would survive of 10 born.

--Cindy

Byron · 2002-11-01 09:07:46

LOL. Very creative. Who am I to say you made an unwise decision? However, i had hoped for a serious consideration of the problem- I am of course assuming your previous reply was just a fun kidding around.

Actually, I was actually being half-serious in my last reply, I was being funny, yes, but I was attempting to make a valid point as well. If I feel that I am unqualified to make this kind of decision, who's to say that I *must* fulfill my role as the decider of fate?

The threat of being eaten notwithstanding, I guess I would have carefully to examine the personalities of those who do want children and the ones the don't and figure out which group would hate me more or less depending which way I decide. My personal fate hangs in the balance as well... being ostracized by various members of the stranded islanders can and would have a huge impact on my future life on the island. Perhaps I'll agree to decide only if the entire group solemnly swears that they will not hold it it against me irregardless of what decision I do make...

Another consideration is the issue of enforcement...if I decided that having children would indeed be a strain on the resources of the island (as per my personal obervations and knowledge of the variable climate that could effect future crop production, for instance), and that's what I decide...but one of the couples get pregnant anyway, claiming it was an "accident." What happens then? Kill the baby as soon as it comes out of the womb? Or just letting it go, and the other couple end up having an "accident" as well, therefore undermining my original decision?

Perhaps I should just say "yes" to having children, in spite of my personal belief that having them is a very bad idea. At least we wouldn't have to worry about enforcement...and there's a chance I could be wrong about the variable climate. One can only hope for the best in these type of circumstances...

Either way I decide, I would explain to the group that I do not relish being put in this type of situation at ALL, and I am only doing this because I was *forced* to do so, and I should get nothing but respect for doing my job...no matter what eventually happens as a result of my decision...

B

clark · 2002-11-01 09:09:22

Cindy, thank you for demonstrating the process of determing your decision... at least in parts.

The bits and pieces you keep bringing up are what YOU bring to the table when reaching your decision. It is how you perceive the information, what is more important, what is less important in terms of consideration when making a judgement. How you feel about certain topics, what your basic beliefs are- things of that nature.

So how would you decide, or would you follow Byron's example and not decide at all?

clark · 2002-11-01 09:16:13

Thank you Byron, and your honest appraisal of your ability to decide in this situation speaks volumes about your own thoughtful consideration, and actually demonstrates how you are a good judge.

Now, the group did say they would abide by your decision since it would be the tie-breaker, so in a sense, the people are agreeing to go along with what the group decides, not what you decide- you just happen to be the one voting last. Does that help?

Your personal fears are understandable, but irregardless of the decision made, the group is still stuck on an island together and must work together by neccessity for all to survive- remember, each has a unique skill set that is integral to the overall group.

Your concerns regarding enforcement are also legitmate, and what to do about accidents is a problem that you may consider before making a decision- it would be part of your ratioanle for reaching a decision to vote one way versus another way... yet you must vote. Your life is in the balance as well- you exsist on the island and must live with the effects of your decision.

So how would you decide, and what would you decide?

Byron · 2002-11-01 09:53:45

You've got me started down this road..might as well as keep going...

Let's say we're voting on a black-and-white issue..should the islanders be allowed to have children? I give this some thought and come back to the group with a proposal of my own...which is allowing some children...but not an 'unlimited' number. If things are O.K. for the duration...surely the addition of a couple more people (actually less..kids don't eat much until they hit 10 or so..) really should not make or break the resources of the island. I insist that having two or three kids will probably be O.K...but a doubling of the population would definately put the island at grave risk in the future.

The group like this proposal and vote on...setting a final limit of four kids (first-come, first-serve) over the lifetime of the original strandees...with the provision that if a child dies, the parents would have the right replace him or her. The final vote is 7-4...and I can rest easy that I was able to craft a compromise that most people are happy with, provides some measure of safety and removes the thorny issue of enforcement, at least for a while.

The above example is honestly the scenario I would strive for..make as many people as happy as possible, while keeping the risk of overpopulation to a more (hopefully) managable level. I would work very hard to convince people to attempt to work out a "middle way"...even if it means taking a convulated path to get there.

But I were to fail at this attempt at moderating this stark Yes / No issue..and I was the lone tiebreaker...

Guess I'll have to get back to ya next week on that one....

Ahh, man....I don't have the capability of being that cruel...

..LOL..

In the end, after giving this some serious thought....I would vote yes to having children. I would be going against my personal beliefs that this could lead to ruin in the end...and that I may very well pay for this decision with my life. But I would nethertheless vote "yes" anyhow...

The reasons for me voting "yes" mainly centers around the issue of enforcement...exactly how, with contraceptives obviously running out, would we be able to prevent accidental pregnacies? A ban on children would effectively be a ban on sex...and that would be asking a bit too much, in my opinion...
Yes, of course, you can practice the rhythm method, as well as the other kind of preventive measure...but we all know that these methods of contraception have low levels of long-term success. So a "yes" vote would essentially legitimize the inevitiability of at least some children being born... and the idea of forced abortions and infanticde ...I'll take my chances of starvation in the future rather than having to go down that road...

My efforts as reasonability wouldn't just stop there, after the issue has been decided for 'good.' I would continue to talk reason into the child-ready couples, day and night, year in and year out...insist having one or two will probably be O.K....but no more than that, please, pretty please....

Right or wrong...there's no avoiding that my tie-breaking decision will always be a heavy burden on my soul...

B

Palomar · 2002-11-01 11:30:17

A ban on children would effectively be a ban on sex...and that would be asking a bit too much, in my opinion...
Yes, of course, you can practice the rhythm method, as well as the other kind of preventive measure...but we all know that these methods of contraception have low levels of long-term success.

*Well, there are other options, as far as intimate activity goes, wherein birth prevention wouldn't have to be a concern.

Hint: It's the opposite of the front door.

...not wanting to go much further in this particular aspect of the thread...

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-11-01 11:40:18

Cindy, thank you for demonstrating the process of determing your decision... at least in parts.
The bits and pieces you keep bringing up are what YOU bring to the table when reaching your decision. It is how you perceive the information, what is more important, what is less important in terms of consideration when making a judgement. How you feel about certain topics, what your basic beliefs are- things of that nature.
So how would you decide, or would you follow Byron's example and not decide at all?

*Oh, I'd vote. Just to make certain my viewpoint was "on the record" and that people couldn't later tell me, "Well, you didn't vote, so you have no say; you obviously didn't care then, so why should we listen to you now?"

I'd vote, but only after pointing out to the group the possible long-term consequences, hazards, and risks in either direction, along with the need for anticipating and ::trying:: to plan ahead either way the majority rules.

I don't feel I can say, without actually being in that situation, how I would vote. Which way I'd vote would would depend on the variables involved, environmental factors, etc. Thus, I cannot say I -know- how I would vote when I'm sitting here in the comfort of my office and home, and not facing that dilemma.

--Cindy

George H · 2002-11-01 12:11:19

A ban on children would effectively be a ban on sex...and that would be asking a bit too much, in my opinion...
Yes, of course, you can practice the rhythm method, as well as the other kind of preventive measure...but we all know that these methods of contraception have low levels of long-term success.
*Well, there are other options, as far as intimate activity goes, wherein birth prevention wouldn't have to be a concern.
Hint: It's the opposite of the front door.
...not wanting to go much further in this particular aspect of the thread...
--Cindy

So Cindy, you're a lady. And also smart, fun & witty. Now, if you're half as pretty as you are those other things, I'd have to say your husband is one damned lucky guy. Too bad you don't have a pix in your profile.

George H · 2002-11-01 12:15:28

Anal sex, coitus interruptus, some other sex acts I can think of that most people wouldn't have too much of a moral issue with don't include semen into the vaginal canal, and no chance of getting pregnant. You can still have lots of hot, great sex without getting your partner knocked up. I think that's what Cindy's trying to say, but it seems she's too much a lady to say it.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-01 12:27:27

Cindy, ahahahah! That was great. And true. There are many alternate forms of pleasure which don't require direct penetration. Hehehe.

But clark, you're wrong. Global warming and the ozone layer are both proven, anyon who denies the existance of either, are crack scientists. The ozone layer is finally closing up after the ban on PFCs in the 60s-70s. And global warming isn't stopping, despite claims that it's a millennial thing. Even the Bush* admin accepts that global warming is a problem, but it's ?too far gone, so we may as well allow it to continue.? (What a laughable position to take.)

The people, who, after observing a population drop, or a decline in the health of their plants, contimue consuming, are irrational fools who I would ultimately argue deserve exactly what they get. In the end, letting them do what they want after acquiring my own resources is probably the best solution (but not before trying to kindly convince them that they're just fools for continuing the cut down trees and hunt their wavering bore populations). Darwinism in action!

This ?hypothetical? has problems, first you ask a question in which you suggest that people have the ablity to use science, then you suggest that science is completely unusable to them. Surely this can't be right.

clark · 2002-11-01 13:27:57

The global warming issue was merely to demonstrate my point, which is that people can take facts and use them to support either view on certain issues- don't take it to seriously.

Now, these people are stranded on an island- they don't have modern science, but they are capable of understanding the effects they may have on the eco-system- half the people believe that the island will fail with more people, the other half belive this not to be the case. Both sides feel they are being open minded and rationale, but they see things differently. Glass half full/empty comes to mind.

This is a hypothetical, so please, disregard your current situation and try to imagine what you might do and why- no cop outs, otherwise, stop playing.

As for the issue of birth control, if it will help, there is a source of plant that exsists on the island that is abundant and which will prevent 99.99% of all pregnancies, however, the more you use it, the less likey you are to ever get pregnant in the future. Factor in this information and what do you decide? Oh yeah, either man or woman can use it and it works the same on both.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-01 15:08:51

Well, I'm a scientific thinker. If it was me, surely I would know how to manage my resources. The only way your situation would happen, is if somewhat religious people were stranded there. And even then, the solution is obvious: let them die off after acquiring your own resources.

Imagine stranded islanders who think that boar are magically provided by a god, and that they can continue hunting them until no more are left. These people would take their ?observation? as ?fact? because, surely, god does provide the boar, right?

...what would be your solution(s), clark?

clark · 2002-11-04 07:51:16

Well Josh, letting the individuals engage in their reckless behavior is fine, however, you will have to suffer with the consquences since you need the individuals in order to survive on the island (if they die off, you are in jepordy as you will no longer have thei unique skill sets). Furthermore, the island is such that you cannot divide up the resources that each need- it's like trying to divide up the oxygen on earth- we all use it, there is no partrioning off of the resources like you are reffering to. Lastly, the children that the couples have will eventually use up your resources as well- or do damage (possibly) to the eco-system in which you depend.

Please remember, there is no "solution" to this dilema, only different points of view.

However, if placed in this position, (i have refrained since this was my thought experiment, but you asked) I would vote against having children.

The reasons are multiple: 1. Having children would constutite a risk to all members of the group, and given that the effect is an unknown. It is unreasonable to risk the lives of the entire group for the desires of the other half; the couples who want children are engaing in a risk, fine, but that risk is experienced by everyone, even those who do not choose the risk.
2. If more people could be supported, there is still the issue of the children never being able to leave the island. While rescue is not likely, it is a possibility (however remote). If children are present, it complicates the whole issue of being rescued since some would have to stay on the island with the children- you are effectively saying that you are here to stay.
3. Even if the children can be supported, to what end? The situation stands that 11 people are required to survive on the island- each has a unique skill set- all of these skills would have to be taught to the children- an unknown number- to survive after the original party dies off- having children in this situation seems to doom them- they are effectively stuck on an island where their prospects for living is pretty grim.

The people who want children want them for selfish reasons in my mind- to fufill some need- yet what is the result for the children? What is the result for the group? You have the right to do anything as long as it does not infinge upon my rights- and that is why I would vote No on children for the island.

Does this make sense? What would you vote and why?

Byron · 2002-11-04 10:03:55

However, if placed in this position, (i have refrained since this was my thought experiment, but you asked) I would vote against having children.
The reasons are multiple: 1. Having children would constutite a risk to all members of the group, and given that the effect is an unknown. It is unreasonable to risk the lives of the entire group for the desires of the other half; the couples who want children are engaing in a risk, fine, but that risk is experienced by everyone, even those who do not choose the risk.
2. If more people could be supported, there is still the issue of the children never being able to leave the island. While rescue is not likely, it is a possibility (however remote). If children are present, it complicates the whole issue of being rescued since some would have to stay on the island with the children- you are effectively saying that you are here to stay.
3. Even if the children can be supported, to what end? The situation stands that 11 people are required to survive on the island- each has a unique skill set- all of these skills would have to be taught to the children- an unknown number- to survive after the original party dies off- having children in this situation seems to doom them- they are effectively stuck on an island where their prospects for living is pretty grim.
The people who want children want them for selfish reasons in my mind- to fufill some need- yet what is the result for the children? What is the result for the group? You have the right to do anything as long as it does not infinge upon my rights- and that is why I would vote No on children for the island.
Does this make sense? What would you vote and why?

Now that you've mentioned which way you would vote in your island scenario and the reasons why, I would like to ask you a few questions...

1. You say that having children would constitute a risk to all members of the group...how do you determine there is a risk, and if so, how much? You mention there is no absolute way to determine how many people the island can support...which also means there is a risk to the existing 11 people that are already there, such as a drought, etc. If one studies how primative societies survived and even thrived in isolated settlements / communities...one of the ways they acomplished this was by having children (and plenty of them, too!) and putting them into 'service' as quickly as possible. Long before the kids became adults, they were a valuable resource not only to the parents, but to the community as a whole.

Yes, the risk of having children is real, but so is the risk of not having children...after all, there is the very real certainty that the adults will eventually die, leaving no one to carry on their crucial skill-sets...with children, at least you'll be cultivating replacements for the aging adults..enabling the the surviving adults to continue living even after some of their peers die off.

The real trick here is proper management...keeping the growth rate to 5% or less per year is the key to ensuring long-term survival and keeping the risks of resource depletion to tolerably low levels...if everyone had 4 kids a piece...that's when the scenario of Easter Island comes to the fore...

2. Ever heard of the world's most isolated community, Tristan de Cunha? Despite the fact that the British government has demonstrated that members of Tristan are not welcome on the 'home soil', and are effectively 'doomed' to live out their entire lives on this remote outpost in the deep South Atlantic...that hasn't stopped the adults of that community from having children. If one were to ask the children of Tristan about their 'plight"...nearly all of them would say that their island is the only home they have ever known..why move anywhere else?

In your scenario, the people have decided that the possibility of rescue is low enough that the assumption has to be made at some point that the islanders are here to say..and if rescue does take place at some distant time in the future...it would be the parents with children that would have to remain behind...and if they have children with this knowledge in mind...then there's no moral dilemma.

You have children,you stay there for life...as long as that fact is clear,than there should be no problem...and if a chance for rescue does occur in the distant future...it is highly unlikely that anyone would want to leave their home and have to start over somewhere else..look at the example of long-term prisoners being freed and being unable to cope with living 'outside.'

If the possibility of rescue is really as low as you have hypothesized...I think it would be unfair to force everyone to live out their entire lives prepared for the possibility of having to leave at any time (suitcase mentality.) If the group is stuck, and likely stuck for good...than what's so bad about creating a whole new community...as long as proper planning for risk management is carried out?

3. Lastly..you mention that the living situation would be pretty 'grim' for the offspring...by who's measures? The children, such as the ones on Tristan de Cunha, most likely will not see their home as 'grim'...and chances are that they will be able to make a decent home for themselves..after all, 22 people would be able to accomplish so much more than a mere 11...which would lead to higher living standards for all.

I'm not arguing against your decision to vote "no"...you say yourself that there's no right or wrong in this scenario...I'm just looking for some clarifications on your reasons for doing so...

B

clark · 2002-11-04 10:27:22

All good questions and points of view Byron, but let me clarify my thinking:

Wether or not actual risk exsists to the ecosystem of the island is immaterial in my mind for determining the way I would vote- the actual reisk cannot be assesed unless the ecosystem is tested- but the test is a risk to begin with. The people who BELIEVE there is a risk is all that needs to be taken into account here. They believe a risk is there, so unless I or someone else can prove this wrong, that "risk" will be real enough for all intents and purposes.

5 people believe there is a risk, 5 people believe there is none- if I vote Yes, then the risk may prove to be true, and then we ALL pay with our lives. Is it right to ask others to risk their life on something that isn't neccessarily needed? Is this a "neccessary risk"? What do we gain? Irregardless of my personal choice in the matter- let's say I want children- is it right for me to ask the others to risk their lives for my desire to have children? Why should I expect others to risk themselves for this?

Yes, we all may eventually die off- but having children to "hedge our bets" seems a bit misguided for a reason to have children on a deserted island. We are stranded on an island- no one had any particular plans for making a life here- the children we would have will ultimetly be doomed to the same fate as us, but more so since they would be unable to ever leave the island. Sure, it might be home to them, but from my perspective it is little more than a glorified prison since they can never leave it. Just my opinion.

If the group is stuck, and likely stuck for good...than what's so bad about creating a whole new community...as long as proper planning for risk management is carried out?

Nothing is wrong with that except that it is all predicated on taking a risk with everyone's life. In order to see if the eco-system can handle more people, we have to have more people- yet testing it may prove that the system cannot tolerate any more people- which leads to everyone dying. How would this be ethical?

Also, there is the large danger to life inherent in child birth. Losing one member, including the women, could spell disaster for the group since it is dependant upon all members to function.

HeloTeacher · 2002-11-22 15:08:16

I vote for children.

The scenario you have proposed leads me to expect to be on this place for a very long time. Those who wish to accept this and make this place their home have the right to do so. I could not in good conscience consign my fellows to a lingering life without children or a future. If the group is sufficiently enlightened to assess the island resources and abide by a democratic vote then I would accept that they are mature enough to acknowledge the risks of childbirth and accept them if they wish to have children.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-10-29 08:07:49

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#2 2002-10-29 10:37:31

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#3 2002-10-29 10:52:56

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#4 2002-10-29 15:34:54

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#5 2002-11-01 02:11:33

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#6 2002-11-01 08:28:53

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#7 2002-11-01 08:43:57

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#8 2002-11-01 09:05:19

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#9 2002-11-01 09:07:46

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#10 2002-11-01 09:09:22

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#11 2002-11-01 09:16:13

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#12 2002-11-01 09:53:45

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#13 2002-11-01 11:30:17

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#14 2002-11-01 11:40:18

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#15 2002-11-01 12:11:19

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#16 2002-11-01 12:15:28

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#17 2002-11-01 12:27:27

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#18 2002-11-01 13:27:57

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#19 2002-11-01 15:08:51

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#20 2002-11-04 07:51:16

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#21 2002-11-04 10:03:55

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#22 2002-11-04 10:27:22

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

#23 2002-11-22 15:08:16

Re: Thought experiment - Moral dilema

Board footer